On Jun 3, 5:47 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com
> ''.....In Indonesia they build see faring boats. The see is the
> selector, the boats that come back, they copy, those that don't they
> don't copy. It is natural selection right there. at 5:40 min .....''
> Thus they replicate those designs that work, which is a truism.
Far from it, I'd say it is a contingent fact about that culture, which
relies on their learning ability (can they spot the patterns,
interpret them correctly etc) absence of countervailing belief
systems ( as the opposition of lightening rods in Europe showed, they
might think that building better boats interferes with the punishment
of the sea gods)and a whole lot of other factors. There are lots and
lots of reasons why the less optimal design could be chosen - just
think of the VHS v. Betamax debate
> is taking place is an expression of design attributes, no attributes
> were acquired by the boat builders.
? Of course no attributes were acquired by the boat builders, we are
talking about attributes of the boats here.
> They always had the latent ability
> to build boats. Furthermore it doesn't explain the actual reason why
> those see faring boats have the characteristics that enable see
So what? Why would a top level concept explain such a specific issue?
The theory of gravity explains in principle how a canon ball flies,
but won't tell you in itself who, and from where, the bullet was fired
that killed Sir Thomas Picton at Waterloo.
To explain what features exactly make one ship better than the other
requires in addition knowledge from engineering, the concept of
natural selection only tells you where to look for it (to the
interaction of ships with their environment in this case) Same with
biological traits - the concept of natural selection only makes it
meaningful to ask a couple of questions regarding the traits of
individuals, it directs us to the way in which we can then formulate a
whole bunch of falsifiable "local" theories that add information about
the specific trait, the specific environment etc.
> Dennett is doing post-factum rationalization , because if the other
> boats instead were see worthy he would tell us the same thing. His
> argument is constructed so that it can't be verified or refuted
Sure can be refuted. Go to the fisherman and ask them: how do you
decide what features to keep in a ship, and which ones to change? If
they tell you: well, we draw a lot and keep whatever gets the highest
number", the theory that their approach to shipbuilding is an example
of selection is refuted.
> thus unfalsifiable, enabling him to insert his non-sequitur, that by a
> slow differential or incremental process each generation acquired the
> attributes to enable them to design better boats. From the YEC view,
> they merely expressed their pre-existing attributes.
The pre existing attributes of the ship? What you say makes no sense